@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.@mdashE. Pushpalatha, the petitioner herein is the defendant. Shanmughasundaram filed a suit for partition contending
that his late father and the petitioner herein had purchased the suit property by contributing equal share and after his father''s death, he was entitled
to the share of his father. The suit was resisted by the petitioner/defendant by filing the written statement raising various grounds including the point
relating to the pecuniary jurisdiction. According to the petitioner, though the market value was mentioned in the sale deed as Rs.22,500/-, the
actual value was later determined at Rs.93,000/- and the half share of the said value would be Rs.46,500/- and as such, it would bring the suit
beyond pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial Court.
2. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed. One of the issues is regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction. Thereafter, the
petitioner filed a petition to take up the issue regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction as a preliminary issue and decide the matter.
3. The trial Court after hearing the counsel for the parties, dismissed the same holding that it could be decided along with the other issues. Hence,
this Civil Revision Petition.
4. The counsel for the petitioner would assail the impugned order contending that the respondent/plaintiff valued the suit only on the basis of one-
half of the value of the sale deed, namely Rs.22,500/- without disclosing the fact that the document was subsequently valued at Rs.93,000/- and
this objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction was raised in the written statement itself and as such, under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C., this issue
has to be taken as a preliminary issue and decide the same.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions by the counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the impugned order.
6. There is no dispute in the fact that the suit property was purchased for the value of Rs.22,500/- both by the petitioner and the plaintiff''s father
by contributing equal share through the sale deed dated 11.11.1997. The suit has been filed seeking for partition on 30.6.2000. The written
statement has been filed contesting the suit by raising various grounds. It is mentioned in the written statement that though the sale deed dated
11.11.1997 was executed for the sale consideration of Rs.22,500/-, the sale deed was kept pending registration, since the price was valued in
accordance with the guideline value and fixed at Rs.93,000/- and the same had not been paid by the father of the plaintiff and ultimately, the
defendant alone had paid the stamp duty chargeable on the balance of sale price Rs.70,500/- and got back the original sale deed and as such, the
plaintiff''s father is bound to contribute his share of the stamp duty to the defendant.
7. In the last paragraph, it is stated that if the suit property has been valued either on the market value or guideline value, the value of the half share
in the suit property will be arrived at Rs.46,500/- and therefore, the trial Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit.
8. On this basis, the trial Court framed several issues including this point relating to the market value of the property involving the pecuniary
jurisdiction. These issues were framed on 12.2.2001.
9. In June 2001, the petitioner filed a petition under Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. to try the preliminary issue on the point of pecuniary jurisdiction and
give a finding thereof. The counter has been filed on 10.10.2001. The trial Court, ultimately after hearing the counsel for the parties, passed the
impugned order on 12.6.2002 dismissing the application holding that the said issue could be decided along with the other issues after trial is over.
10. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the property was valued at Rs.93,000/- and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim half
share of the property, as it would bring the suit beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction.
11. The learned counsel would cite the decision in R.C. Sundaravalli Vs. T.D. Shakila, in order to substantiate his plea that this objection has been
raised before the trial and as such, the trial Court ought to have decided the issue relating to jurisdiction.
12. I am unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the petitioner, since the said decision R.C. Sundaravalli Vs. T.D. Shakila, would not
refer to the similar facts of the present case. In that case, this Court while interpreting the words ""first hearing of the suit"" which are contained in
Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, the suit has been ultimately concluded that the question whether the suit has
been properly valued or not could be decided along with the other issues, since the issues have been framed and trial also had commenced. Thus,
that was the case which had dealt with Section 12(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suit Valuation Act.
13. In the said decision, two other decisions of this Court, namely, THANDAVARAYA POORSALI v. PERIYASAMY ASARI 2000 (3)
M.L.J. 342 and Laljivora Vs. Srividya, , which have dealt with Order 14 Rule 12 C.P.C., have been referred to.
14. On going through those decisions, it is clear that where the issue of determination of valuation of suit required probe into the market value of
the property in the suit, the same need not have been tried as a preliminary issue.
15. The above provisions would provide a mandate on the Court that notwithstanding that a case may be disposed of on a preliminary issue, the
Court has to pronounce judgment on all the issues. The only exception to this is contained in Sub-rule (2). This sub-rule also relaxes the mandate
to a limited extent by conferring a discretion upon the Court. Therefore, it is for the trial Court to decide the jurisdictional issue, which is a mixed
question of law and fact and such an issue is not required to be answered as preliminary issue.
16. When the plaintiff would assert that the market value is Rs.22,500/- and the suit could be valued at 30 times of the kist value, the same has to
be enquired into by allowing the plaintiff to have the full-fledged trial. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention urged by the counsel for
the petitioner. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. C.M.P.No.13012 of 2002 is also dismissed.
